NationStates Jolt Archive

As some of you may have noticed, there has been a proposal of a United Front between the UDCP and the MLP.

What this entails is keeping our two organisations seperate, but having the votes go to the United Front instead of either party.

We can draw up a list of short-term goals that both parties will agree on and work to enact them in parliament.

This means that both parties will have freedom to criticise both the United Front and its policies as well as the the other party and its policies, yet remain united to achieve common goals.

Issues we need to discuss-

Should other parties be allowed into the Front? Will the AACP be a representative of the working class or will it push for anarcho-capitalism? Is the DSP really a socialist party or merely liberals masquerading as lefties in the hopes of attracting votes from both sides of the political spectrum?

Should the Front have its own membership list as well as an organisational membership list so that independents can join the Front?

What are the short term goals we should be working on? What are our electoral goals?

What should the Front be named?

Just how permanent should the Front be? Shall we disband once all our goals have been achieved? A few of them? Shall we set a time limit as opposed to a goal limit?

A few thoughts:

Leaving aside ideological questions, in terms of political practicality both parties are too extreme. The DSP is centrist, maybe center-left; we are extreme left. There is a huge gap, and a lot of voters we could pick up if we moved just a little rightward. Is it worth it? I don't know.

The AACP will not be with us parliamentarily, the most we will be able to accomplish is left-wing reforms of capitalism, and when the state is involved (as it will be) they will oppose that.

Independents should be allowed to align with the Front; it should be broader and a little more moderate than either party.

And you were accusing me of Stalinism?
Perhaps you could name it The Dimitrov Position.

And you were accusing me of Stalinism?
Perhaps you could name it The Dimitrov Position.

Try using correct terms to describe correct conditions in the future. How is this stalinistic? We are refusing to align with capitalist parties.

I am in favour of this measure. If there's no united front for the communists, then there will only be capitalistic appeasement.

I was thinking that myself...leftist parties divide the vote, whereas the conservatives have one party. I think admittance beyond the original two parties should be decided by a vote of the members.

I also agree with Soheran. The MLP and UDCP are very left, and there is a huge gap between them and the next party. Perhaps moving one to be a little more center would allow a greater voter base, or creating a third party that would still follow the Fronts ideals. I would be willing to do this if there was the interest....I know personally, the economics of both parties are a bit extreme for me, but I voted for UDCP for their stance on other issues. Note that I don't propose a "capitalist" party, perse, but a hybrid that is based on the concept of communism, but also allows for some individual growth

I think the front should exist as long as there is a need. Create goals to start with, and as those are reached, create new ones. If it ceases to be effective, then disband.

Try using correct terms to describe correct conditions in the future. How is this stalinistic? We are refusing to align with capitalist parties.
Stalin aimed to avoid an alliance with the "bourgeois" party in the beginning. That is what he used the Comintern for, initially. He got refused, of course. By most, not by all: ever wondered why Rakovsky returned to the Soviet Union?
The method is Stalinist. It is not the only one used by Stalinism, but it is one Dimitrov paid lip service to as well.
But I may be wrong, and this is Leninism trying to gather naive communists around it - such as it did when it called all sorts of Left Communists and Anarcho-Communists to the Profintern and Comintern (while executing their partners inside Russia).

As to non-Stalinist Leninism gathering around it "only non-capitalist parties" (I'll play along with the misnomer), let me point out some of Lenin's allies:
-Imperial Germany
-Mustafa Kemal Ataturk
-The Mensheviks in the Caspian region after the October Revolution
-The pan-islamists in Central Asia
-The Agrarian Party in Bulgaria
-Those Mongolian clerics that were deemed "progressive"
-the left wing in the Bund
Of course, many of them were executed by the Cheka when they were no longer useful...

I also agree with Soheran. The MLP and UDCP are very left, and there is a huge gap between them and the next party. Perhaps moving one to be a little more center would allow a greater voter base, or creating a third party that would still follow the Fronts ideals. I would be willing to do this if there was the interest....I know personally, the economics of both parties are a bit extreme for me, but I voted for UDCP for their stance on other issues. Note that I don't propose a "capitalist" party, perse, but a hybrid that is based on the concept of communism, but also allows for some individual growth.

Third party would be best, I think; left social democrat (think German Linkspartei) or moderate socialist (SPUSA).

Third party would be best, I think; left social democrat (think German Linkspartei) or moderate socialist (SPUSA).
I agree...if and when the united front has been developed and a set of goals and philosophies established, I will start up a thread for the new party...That way we will know what we are working with.

I think if we are two communist parties forming a Front, then it logically follows that the Front should be communist too. Otherwise what are we really doing except for substituting our common beliefs for a set that we don't follow.

Stalin aimed to avoid an alliance with the "bourgeois" party in the beginning. That is what he used the Comintern for, initially. He got refused, of course. By most, not by all: ever wondered why Rakovsky returned to the Soviet Union?

Stalin didn't care about who he aligned with because he had no principles and no understanding of how his faulty tactic would lead to massive defeat. Why are you dragging Rakovsky into this?


The method is Stalinist. It is not the only one used by Stalinism, but it is one Dimitrov paid lip service to as well.

Except, as I've said before, we're not aligning with capitalists.


But I may be wrong, and this is Leninism trying to gather naive communists around it - such as it did when it called all sorts of Left Communists and Anarcho-Communists to the Profintern and Comintern (while executing their partners inside Russia).

You mean those bold anarcho-communists who were fighting both the whites and the reds?

As for your list of allies.
-Imperial Germany: Gave him a train ticket because they knew he would take Russia out of the war. Hardly on the same level as forming an organisational front.
-Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: Bought the workers' state some space and gained some territory.
-The Mensheviks in the Caspian region after the October Revolution: Oh no, he was working with other socialists?
-The pan-islamists in Central Asia: You mean the ones fighting against imperialism? Lenin? Support a national liberation struggle? What?
-The Agrarian Party in Bulgaria: I don't know anything about these chaps, but from what i know about agrarian parties is that they tend to be social-democratic.
-Those Mongolian clerics that were deemed "progressive": progressive or socialists?
-the left wing in the Bund: Once again, socialists.

We've derailed this thread with petty bickering enough. If you want to continue this debate, please take it to another thread.

I think if we are two communist parties forming a Front, then it logically follows that the Front should be communist too. Otherwise what are we really doing except for substituting our common beliefs for a set that we don't follow.
makes sense that a group of communist parties would be grouped in a communist front.
maybe United Communist Front (for some reason, the "front" part is feeling a little imperial) or the United Communist Party Front. Perhaps United Leftist Front?

maybe a mission statement would be good to come up with first, to get a sense of what, exactly, the front will exist for. With that, it will be easier to create goals.

maybe a mission statement would be good to come up with first, to get a sense of what, exactly, the front will exist for. With that, it will be easier to create goals.

Fair enough. I think our mission should be to move capitalist society to a stage that will make it easier for communists to take power.

I think the purpose of this coalition is to unite the communist parties to resist capitalism in NS parliament. I think it should be formerly called the United Communist Front, and only the UDCP and MLP be allowed in it.

I think the purpose of this coalition is to unite the communist parties to resist capitalism in NS parliament. I think it should be formerly called the United Communist Front, and only the UDCP and MLP be allowed in it.
just curious, why only the UDCP and MLP?

just curious, why only the UDCP and MLP?
Because currently they're two only to extreme communist parties.

Because currently they're two only to extreme communist parties.
well, yes, but baring future parties seems like it may come back to kick the front in the ass...

well, yes, but baring future parties seems like it may come back to kick the front in the ass...
Then we could all put it to a vote.

well, yes, but baring future parties seems like it may come back to kick the front in the ass...

I think it would be foolish to allow parties representing the interests of the ruling class into the Front. All they will do is water down our politics and cut the working-class demands back to a bare minimum.

It would appear that the militants have far more to gain than the democrats. I can’t even understand why the UDCP is working with this fringe element. They simply don’t have to.

Yes. We're just soooooo unsavoury

personally, i'm up for the idea if we can resolve some issues.
first off, if the votes for the two (or three parties) are 'split' between the parties in the Front, how do we decide how many seats in parliament each constituent party gets? percentage of total vote? (in which case what is the point of consolidating the votes in that way in the first place?), or maybe put forward MPs on the basis of merit from the combined membership, not worrying about what party the candidate stems from? that could work, but i'm sure it would lead to tensions.

secondly, the UDCP and the MLP disagree on a large number of issues. as i see it the Front could be no more than a voting bloc for a very few general leftist ideas and proposals in parliament. if we don't want it to be any more than that, then fine - i'm definatley for that. just bear in mind that the 'United' Front will often be bitterly divided - especially if the DSP joins the ranks.

finally, i dislike the idea wholeheartedly of moving either party toward the centre just to grab votes. it's politically shallow for a start. the parties of the left are idealist parties, and what are we if we do not stick to those ideals? for another thing, the economic policies of the UDCP are extreme for a reason - we believe they will work as a whole - and are balanced against each other and other policies. i for one will be stubborn and say i would flat-out oppose a rightward restructuring of UDCP economic policy.

however, i do agree with this...



I also agree with Soheran. The MLP and UDCP are very left, and there is a huge gap between them and the next party. Perhaps moving one to be a little more center would allow a greater voter base, or creating a third party that would still follow the Fronts ideals. I would be willing to do this if there was the interest....I know personally, the economics of both parties are a bit extreme for me, but I voted for UDCP for their stance on other issues. Note that I don't propose a "capitalist" party, perse, but a hybrid that is based on the concept of communism, but also allows for some individual growth

I think the front should exist as long as there is a need. Create goals to start with, and as those are reached, create new ones. If it ceases to be effective, then disband.

another 'moderate' leftist party might be an effective weapon against the rightists. it might also steal votes away from the DSP (who are currently running away with the election for precisely this reason, as i see it) as voters aren't able to vote for the extreme UDCP or MLP (especailly as the DSP have been moving rightward anyway). a socialist moderate party or moderate communist party would do a good job here, but we must bear in mind that the left is always fractured to a stupid degree... more so than the right. further fracturing and dividing the left vote would be utterly pointless unless we can keep together under such a United Front and coordinate our efforts when we can and when it matters.


to summise: the Front has to be loose but effective. maybe just an agreement by the parties to work together, and a common shared thread (such as this) or an external forum (we could use a section of the established UDCP forum if you liked) to discuss strategies and votes in parliament would be a good idea.

I think we should keep thr front exclusively communist. I think, in terms of the election, this front would put us ahead of the conservatives. That would mean we'd have a socialist-dominated parliament. From there, we could try to gain some support from the DSP. I think this front will help both parties immensely.

Stalin didn't care about who he aligned with because he had no principles and no understanding of how his faulty tactic would lead to massive defeat. Why are you dragging Rakovsky into this?
Except, as I've said before, we're not aligning with capitalists.

As I have said before: the innitial draft of the Popular Front called for an alliance on the revolutionary left. It was the murky times just before 1934. Rakovsky came back when he had a chance to remain in exile.

You mean those bold anarcho-communists who were fighting both the whites and the reds?

Who, the CNT in Spain? The Comintern called on all of them (while crushing Makhno, who had given them Eastern Ukraine - he was attacked by the Reds thereafter, not the other way).

As for your list of allies.
-Imperial Germany: Gave him a train ticket because they knew he would take Russia out of the war. Hardly on the same level as forming an organisational front.

Uh, so? And what about the Brest-Litovsk treaty? What about when they started attacking Romania in the back? Lenin was doing the Kaiser's job.

-Mustafa Kemal Ataturk: Bought the workers' state some space and gained some territory.

Actually, Turkey got itself some territory (Kars). And the Bolsheviks got themselves some territory in that area before losing it to the Centrocaspian Soviet: after they had the nerve to stage a coup.
The other leftwing parties shunned them, but they were ultimately attacked by the Pan-Islamists in the area they had already cheated. Ataturk came in handy because he had no taste for Pan-Islamic thought, and was fighting the Istanbul Caliphate itself.

-The Mensheviks in the Caspian region after the October Revolution: Oh no, he was working with other socialists?

This is the time to mention that "capitalist" parties Stalin was working with where no less to the "right" than Mensheviks. Check it out: in Spain, there was nothing more to the right than the Izquerida Republicana. In France, nothing to the right of the Radical-Socialists.
The Leninist theory at the time had already deemed the Mensheviks crypto-capitalists. For the purpose of slurring, of course.

-The pan-islamists in Central Asia: You mean the ones fighting against imperialism? Lenin? Support a national liberation struggle? What?

The only imperialism to fight in Central Asia (taking in view the borders), was Russian. You have a non sequitur problem.
Even so, Lenin did not keep any "self-determination" promise he had made (except for the ones he was pushed into by the Germans and Turks). Consider the Georgians.

-The Agrarian Party in Bulgaria: I don't know anything about these chaps, but from what i know about agrarian parties is that they tend to be social-democratic.

Oh, yeah. Stamboliisky was a prestigious social-democrat...
Again: taking in view what Lenin had already said by then: social-dem.=capitalist. The leader of a narodist revolution in Bulgaria would be, I guess, even more to the right of that. Consider that a vaguely narodist force in Russia (the SRs) was already beneath the earth by then.

-Those Mongolian clerics that were deemed "progressive": progressive or socialists?

Again: clerics. You tell me.

-the left wing in the Bund: Once again, socialists.

Again, the slurring campaign "makes" them "capitalists".

We've derailed this thread with petty bickering enough. If you want to continue this debate, please take it to another thread.

Tell me where, and I'll be there.

Look, Argesia I'm tired of arguing about Lenin with you. I'll try and summarise what I believe in this post-

Lenin made temporary alliances with other socialists (nothing wrong with that) and capitalists due to the difficult nature of the position the Russian revolution was in. He never intended to make these alliances permanent or incorporate them into his theory. They were exceptions to his normal ideas.

Stalin did not seek to align with other socialists- the KPD was ordered not to align with the socialists, for example. Even, if as you say, he initially tried to gain an alliance with other revolutionaries, he soon dropped this idea and instead collaborated with capitalists. He did not see this an exception to a rule, and tried to elaborate it into the theory of the 'Popular Front'

Lenin took desperate measures under desperate conditions. Stalin took these desperate measures and said they were effective in all circumstances.

Stalin did not seek to align with other socialists- the KPD was ordered not to align with the socialists, for example. Even, if as you say, he initially tried to gain an alliance with other revolutionaries, he soon dropped this idea and instead collaborated with capitalists. He did not see this an exception to a rule, and tried to elaborate it into the theory of the 'Popular Front'
Again, all those "capitalists" are socialists of some sort. Look it up.

Again, all those "capitalists" are socialists of some sort. Look it up.

I have. I don't agree.

PM, just so I understand, are you advocating the creation of an actual democratic socialist party to enter into the front? If so that may cause a lot of problems for your party.

I have. I don't agree.
Ok, just how is a Menshevik less capitalist (according to your own definition) than Izquerida, PSOE, Parti Radical etc.?

Ok, just how is a Menshevik less capitalist (according to your own definition) than Izquerida, PSOE, Parti Radical etc.?

Mensheviks are revolutionary Marxists. Only difference is they believed in delaying the revolution to a later date and not being such a centralised party. Parti Radical was, at its best, a left-liberal party. I'm gonna use a quote from wikipedia here:

For the latter part of the Third Republic, the Radicals, generally representing anti-clerical peasant and petit bourgeois voters...


PSOE was a socialist group. I didn't say popular fronts didn't include socialists, I just said that they included capitalists as well.

Mensheviks are revolutionary Marxists. Only difference is they believed in delaying the revolution to a later date and not being such a centralised party.

Well, the Bolsheviks (Trotsky in the lead) have been accusing them of not being socialists at all. Look it up: they were with the whites (as were the SRs, which were accused by the Bolsheviks of being too revolutionary), and the scandal started by communists in Germany was decisesively stopped by social-democrats.
"Revolution" is used by you as a convenient euphemism. The Mensheviks believed that nothing was to follow the February Revolution, except for revolutions established through voting! Everything from the Mensheviks to Kautsky rejected violent revolution (without claiming to be less Marxist), because they revised Marxism - accepting is a critique of society, rejecting it as a vision on the future. The only exception they made was for February, because it would bridge the gap between Imperial Russia and Europe (that had been around since the French Revolution - to which February was likened).

As to your definition of the Radicals: that quote on Wiki looks like it is influenced by Marxist rhetoric (even if not from a Marxist source, perhaps - after all, the term itself is Marxist); that aside, take a look at who was in the Krestintern: all of the groups there fit that description according to Lenin himself.

This could be an interesting idea. The members of the UDCP will have to vote on it first, though. I'd be opposed to compromising our ideals towards the right just for the sake of gaining votes, however. What's the point of being elected if it's not to implement the policies we believe in?

This could be an interesting idea. The members of the UDCP will have to vote on it first, though. I'd be opposed to compromising our ideals towards the right just for the sake of gaining votes, however. What's the point of being elected if it's not to implement the policies we believe in?
amen!

Well, the Bolsheviks (Trotsky in the lead) have been accusing them of not being socialists at all. Look it up: they were with the whites (as were the SRs, which were accused by the Bolsheviks of being too revolutionary), and the scandal started by communists in Germany was decisesively stopped by social-democrats.
They were socialists unwilling to fight for socialism and instead chose to fight for capitalism, I can see where that definition came from. However if there were branches who rejected the Mensheviks' position against the revolution then I wouldn't see it as a problem to work with them.
And the SRs basically split so don't try and paint it as being so black-and-white.


"Revolution" is used by you as a convenient euphemism. The Mensheviks believed that nothing was to follow the February Revolution, except for revolutions established through voting! Everything from the Mensheviks to Kautsky rejected violent revolution (without claiming to be less Marxist), because they revised Marxism - accepting is a critique of society, rejecting it as a vision on the future. The only exception they made was for February, because it would bridge the gap between Imperial Russia and Europe (that had been around since the French Revolution - to which February was likened).
Fair enough, they were reformists. Still doesn't make them capitalists until they fight for them.


As to your definition of the Radicals: that quote on Wiki looks like it is influenced by Marxist rhetoric (even if not from a Marxist source, perhaps - after all, the term itself is Marxist); that aside, take a look at who was in the Krestintern: all of the groups there fit that description according to Lenin himself.
What have I told you about the difference between Lenin and Stalin's work with capitalists?

This could be an interesting idea. The members of the UDCP will have to vote on it first, though. I'd be opposed to compromising our ideals towards the right just for the sake of gaining votes, however. What's the point of being elected if it's not to implement the policies we believe in?

Agreed. Any move to the right should be deplored if there is no organisation to the right of us in the front.

They were socialists unwilling to fight for socialism and instead chose to fight for capitalism, I can see where that definition came from. However if there were branches who rejected the Mensheviks' position against the revolution then I wouldn't see it as a problem to work with them.

There are none. That was my point. And that is why your own ideology used stealth.

And the SRs basically split so don't try and paint it as being so black-and-white.

Oh, sure. They split into a "White" majority and a "Red" minority. The Red minority believed the junk about democracy being "procrastinated" to consolidate the workers' state (much like the marines in Kronstadt, ahem). And then, the Civil War ended, and the "all power to the Soviets" was shown to be "all power to mighty Lenin". Most of them died at the hands of the Cheka - before Mr. Stalin took power and finished the rest.

Fair enough, they were reformists. Still doesn't make them capitalists until they fight for them.

Well, they did (according to your own definition): the "German Revolution", the Mensheviks, the socialist Pilsudski, etc etc. Or is it that Trotski told them: "ok, but don't do it again" (i.e.: "you kids stay off my lawn").

What have I told you about the difference between Lenin and Stalin's work with capitalists?

Stalin himself justified his tactic in front of rising Nazism, right? I mean, Nazism is a threat to Trotskyism as well (as it is to the entire world). Based solely on that logic, you couldn't possibly condemn Stalin and the Popular Front strategy - especially since, as I have pointed before, they are the same as Entryism (only different because Trotskyism was always and everywhere in the minority of a minority).
In fact, consider that Stalin justified his pirhouettes to argue for fighting against a threat to human society (not that he himself wasn't, mind you); Lenin only danced with the wolves in order to defend a state that the majority in the socialist camp rejected from the very start (he had even thrown socialists out of office in October, right?). Plus, Lenin conned his partners - Stalin did not. I am of the opinion that, no matter how bad Stalin was, the Soviet-German pact was his last recourse (he had even offered to give military guarantees to the Czechoslovaks in order to prevent a German maneuver in 1938).

Argesia, I am sick of this. I don't like debating with you and I don't like constantly being referred to as a borderline stalinist. I didn't want to debate about lenin in this thread because that is not what this thread is about. I will say this to you- you know a lot about politics. Unfortunately you seem to lack the ability to use this knowledge in any productive capacity or apply it to any situation correctly. You come off acting like a middle-class snobbish intellectual and Im not going along with it any more. Im not going to attempt to challenge your urge to constantly lump all revolutionaries into one group any more because, to be quite frank, I don't care. I really don't care about your doubletalk and illogical conclusions any more.

Argesia, I am sick of this. I don't like debating with you and I don't like constantly being referred to as a borderline stalinist.

Look, I am never going to accuse you or your mentor of being "borderline Stalinists". If there are similarities (be them out of accident), I don't want to fail pointing them out.
I consider Leninism to be totalitarian - even if Stalin was a (kind of) Leninist, even if he was totalitarian, I will not blame Leninists before and after Stalin for "being Stalin". That said, you have to wonder how much of the faults of Stalinism were not born with Leninism, and how much of Leninism itself is acceptable in the civilized world.

I didn't want to debate about lenin in this thread because that is not what this thread is about. I will say this to you- you know a lot about politics. Unfortunately you seem to lack the ability to use this knowledge in any productive capacity or apply it to any situation correctly.

Sophistry.

You come off acting like a middle-class snobbish intellectual and Im not going along with it any more.

Funny, that's what Trotsky always seemed to me.

Im not going to attempt to challenge your urge to constantly lump all revolutionaries into one group any more because, to be quite frank, I don't care.

When did I do that? I have constantly shown the difference(s) between bolsheviks (and within this group in particular), SRs, anarchists, Left Communists, etc.

I really don't care about your doubletalk and illogical conclusions any more.

Doubletalk? You have:
-stressed there are two "different" alliances with "capitalists"
-stressed there are two "different" alliances with other socialists
-stressed there are two "different" moments for alliances
-stressed that Trotsky, the person who spent his early life persecuting opposition, was nonetheless constant when he advocated collaboration (without calling him "Stalinist", I'm gonna say that Stalin is well-known for doing the same)

snip

Don't care. Not arguing. Simple as.

I think it would be foolish to allow parties representing the interests of the ruling class into the Front. All they will do is water down our politics and cut the working-class demands back to a bare minimum.
well, what I'm saying is if, and more when, a new communist party begins (There is a huge area between the DSP and UDCP), it would hurt the front to not ally with this group (or groups). If the front doesn't join up with the DSP or this new group, it would be easy for those two parties to join up with some of the other parties and block all Front attempts.

well, what I'm saying is if, and more when, a new communist party begins (There is a huge area between the DSP and UDCP), it would hurt the front to not ally with this group (or groups). If the front doesn't join up with the DSP or this new group, it would be easy for those two parties to join up with some of the other parties and block all Front attempts.

That sounds like a good idea

I am unopposed to any alliance that the UDCP can make without compromising its principles.

well, what I'm saying is if, and more when, a new communist party begins (There is a huge area between the DSP and UDCP), it would hurt the front to not ally with this group (or groups). If the front doesn't join up with the DSP or this new group, it would be easy for those two parties to join up with some of the other parties and block all Front attempts.Do you think a lot of voters decided not to vote because their views fall between the DSP and the UDCP?

Do you think a lot of voters decided not to vote because their views fall between the DSP and the UDCP?

They most likely compromised and voted DSP. For some reason you guys are viewed as extremists

*laughs, polishes gun*
I jest. I don't own a gun

I can't remember where I said this, but the NSDSP said it would not seek an alliance with a silly party. NSCP obviously won't help them and the NSCL are in the air.

I am unopposed to any alliance that the UDCP can make without compromising its principles.
That's pretty much my view on it.

I don't really see the point in an alliance though. If neither party will change their views, the amount of MPs who vote for something will remain the same whether we ally together or not.

Do the party who get the highest amount of votes have any priviledges I haven't noticed, other than having the highest amount of seats? If so, of course I do then see the point.

Do you think a lot of voters decided not to vote because their views fall between the DSP and the UDCP?

It's more likely that people who fall between the votes will have voted for the DSP because someone moderatly left-wing would probably vote for a centre (perhaps centre-left if I'm kind) party out of extreme left, centre and right.

That's pretty much my view on it.

I don't really see the point in an alliance though. If neither party will change their views, the amount of MPs who vote for something will remain the same whether we ally together or not.Well, perhaps the point of an alliance is that there will be slight shifting of principles.

Do the party who get the highest amount of votes have any priviledges I haven't noticed, other than having the highest amount of seats? If so, of course I do then see the point. Usually the party with the most votes in the coalition is the one who the Prime Minister is chosen from...to my knowledge we don't have a Prime Minister position, though...maybe we should create one?

It's more likely that people who fall between the votes will have voted for the DSP because someone moderatly left-wing would probably vote for a centre (perhaps centre-left if I'm kind) party out of extreme left, centre and right.Lol....yeah, that's probably true. I laugh because for whatever reason when I typed that I thought I was typing "MLP" instead of "DSP".

Well, perhaps the point of an alliance is that there will be slight shifting of principles.

Usually the party with the most votes in the coalition is the one who the Prime Minister is chosen from...to my knowledge we don't have a Prime Minister position, though...maybe we should create one?
A far as I can see though, both parties have expressively said they don't want to compromise or change any individual principles and simply want to work together to achieve things we both already support.

And the fact we don't have anything like a Prime Minister is my point really. I'm not necessarily supporting one - I rather like that one party doesn't rule over the others and I think this way seems more democractic and simply represents the voters views' - but without one I can't see the point in a united front.

Lol....yeah, that's probably true. I laugh because for whatever reason when I typed that I thought I was typing "MLP" instead of "DSP".
Ha, I see.
Well, in answer to the question you meant to ask I'd probably say no...

And the fact we don't have anything like a Prime Minister is my point really. I'm not necessarily supporting one - I rather like that one party doesn't rule over the others and I think this way seems more democractic and simply represents the voters views' - but without one I can't see the point in a united front.


The point of this front is (I'd say) to agree a programme for the left-wing of the parliament to push forward and to be able to guarantee a strong communist presence to speak against the centrists and the righties in parliament.

I am unopposed to any alliance that the UDCP can make without compromising its principles.

Do you think a lot of voters decided not to vote because their views fall between the DSP and the UDCP?
I agree with Glitz...I think people chose to vote DSP instead of UDCP or abstaining. As I've said, personally, the economic policies of puth UDCP and MLP are a bit hardline for me, and what got my vote was the stance on other issues. I think that a party that has this strong stance on the other issues, and having a slightly less hardline left policy would find a good niche (god I hate that word) and most likely, reduce the extreme power base of the DSP. I doubt it would pull in new people to vote, but it would definatly be in a position to pull new people to the left-spectrum

Areas I think the Front should work on-

Disarming the police
Stopping imperialist wars
Strenghtening trade unions
Abolishing racist immigration laws

Anybody else have any ideas?

I think those are a start, but I think they're somewhat moderate. We should also try to get the government more involved in regulating and planning the economy, the rise of minimum wage, the construction of more state housing units, universal education and healthcare. The purpose of the front is to unite the communist factions. We should never compromise our politics.

Okay. Hows this for a list of goals-

Disarming the police.
Stopping imperialist wars.
Nationalisation of first key industries, then all of them.
Strengthening trade unions.
Abolishing immigration controls.
Increasing taxes on the rich.
Reducing taxes on the poor.
Providing universal free education up to and after university level. Private schools/universities to be run by the government.
Providing free health care to all citizens. Private hospitals to be abolished.
Increase minimum wage massively

Okay. Hows this for a list of goals-
Increase minimum wage massivelyFor more specific language, perhaps it could read "increase minimum wage to a living wage."

For more specific language, perhaps it could read "increase minimum wage to a living wage."

How about to more than the living wage?

Okay. Hows this for a list of goals-

Disarming the police.
Stopping imperialist wars.
Nationalisation of first key industries, then all of them.
Strengthening trade unions.
Abolishing immigration controls.
Increasing taxes on the rich.
Reducing taxes on the poor.
Providing universal free education up to and after university level. Private schools/universities to be run by the government.
Providing free health care to all citizens. Private hospitals to be abolished.
Increase minimum wage massively
Similarly to how you said "Nationalisation of first key industries, then all of them", I think the bolded parts should be second steps, after ensuring universal education and healthcare. While I oppose private healthcare and education, if we propose to ban it along with providing universal healthcare and education, it will not pass - I'd rather try and ensure the universal healthcare and education and put up with the private services for now than have no universal healthcare or education at all.

I don't think it would be compromising principles to take it more steadily. Then again, I am seeing it from the UDCPs POV which, generally, is looking at a more steady change.

Other than that, I'd agree with it all.

My only other point is that, along with abolishing/changing immigration controls, we need to be able to show how we would cope with uncontrolled immigration.

Areas I think the Front should work on-

Disarming the police
Stopping imperialist wars
Strenghtening trade unions
Abolishing racist immigration laws

Anybody else have any ideas?

Apologies for interrupting. When you say disarming the police, in what sense? Do you mean just taking away the armed response units weapons, or literally taking away their batons, mace and equipment and such? The first is controversial but I can see where you're going. The second is ridiculous.

Apologies for interrupting. When you say disarming the police, in what sense? Do you mean just taking away the armed response units weapons, or literally taking away their batons, mace and equipment and such? The first is controversial but I can see where you're going. The second is ridiculous.

The first. Taking away their guns.

The first. Taking away their guns.

Ah, okay. Sorry, one more question. What will the police use to respond to criminals with firearms and body armour - such as Bank Robbers - who would severly outgun them without weapons and stop any way of arrest short of waiting for them to starve to death or negotiate? Or if they just open fire at civilians or policemen?

Ah, okay. Sorry, one more question. What will the police use to respond to criminals with firearms and body armour - such as Bank Robbers - who would severly outgun them without weapons and stop any way of arrest short of waiting for them to starve to death or negotiate? Or if they just open fire at civilians or policemen?

We should push for a citizen's response squad- an organisation independent of the police comprised of members of the working-class willing to support their communities and not swear loyalty to the current state. This organisation can deal with hostile crimes.

We should push for a citizen's response squad- an organisation independent of the police comprised of members of the working-class willing to support their communities and not swear loyalty to the current state. This organisation can deal with hostile crimes.

Vigilantes? Doesn't that raise a whole host of new problems? Such as where to get the weaponry, who's in charge, what their objectives are, who stops them from running amok and killing anyone else? Things like that.

Vigilantes? Doesn't that raise a whole host of new problems? Such as where to get the weaponry, who's in charge, what their objectives are, who stops them from running amok and killing anyone else? Things like that.

Having them recallable at any time and allowing the local community to have control over the force.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10613016&postcount=769 interesting...

looks like an alliance might be forced upon us...

An alliance between the two of us and the AAACP might be useful.

first off, i'd also like to add "cracking down on tax evasion by the rich" to the list of proposed joint goals.

second off, i agree with this
Similarly to how you said "Nationalisation of first key industries, then all of them", I think the bolded parts should be second steps, after ensuring universal education and healthcare. While I oppose private healthcare and education, if we propose to ban it along with providing universal healthcare and education, it will not pass - I'd rather try and ensure the universal healthcare and education and put up with the private services for now than have no universal healthcare or education at all.


however, as an intermediary step we could propose to subsidise private healthcare, or regulate the industry further (with an aim to incorporating the private sector into the nationalised industry in time)... though i'm vague on specifics, obviously.

I don't think it would be compromising principles to take it more steadily. Then again, I am seeing it from the UDCPs POV which, generally, is looking at a more steady change.
not at all, for us. the UDCP are the larger party in terms of votes and members - it will be a compromise for the MLP to take things more steadily, but in the end we're working for the same outcome (near enough), its just how we get there we need to compromise and work together on :)


My only other point is that, along with abolishing/changing immigration controls, we need to be able to show how we would cope with uncontrolled immigration.
quite. communism is indeed a international doctrine, so this could be tricky. i'm stumped.... any ideas?

An alliance between the two of us and the AAACP might be useful.
i'm not so sure about the AACP - but that's just cos i'm not familiar with their policies. i'll look later (supposed to be working right now... :()

a question though: are the DSP not interested in joining this coalition, or do we not want them? if they would agree to backing the joint proposals, then there's no reason to exclude them (and it looks to me like they'd at least go along with most of them)
if we could get the DSP on our side (and the AACP), parliament would be entirely dominated by a socialist agenda!

first off, i'd also like to add "cracking down on tax evasion by the rich" to the list of proposed joint goals.I suppose you could just leave it as "tax evasion" to not be discriminatory, but everybody knows it's mostly the rich who do it. (Good idea, by the way.)

i'm not so sure about the AACP - but that's just cos i'm not familiar with their policies. i'll look later (supposed to be working right now... :()They say something along the lines of supporting any form of anarchism.

a question though: are the DSP not interested in joining this coalition, or do we not want them? if they would agree to backing the joint proposals, then there's no reason to exclude them (and it looks to me like they'd at least go along with most of them)
if we could get the DSP on our side (and the AACP), parliament would be entirely dominated by a socialist agenda!I don't know if the DSP is looking to join the coalition or not, I was just saying that it might be a better idea to try to get the AACP to support anarcho-communist ideas, then we wouldn't have to compromise on the issue of capitalism, whereas we would with the DSP.

Personally I don't think an alliance with the AACP would be beneficial. They've already said they'd support extreme capitalism if it leads to anarchy, and that's a risk I wouldn't be willing to take. Unless we could hold them to taking left-wing measures while in the coalition. However, I doubt their anti-authority standpoint would allow them to subject themselves to a greater power.

I think we need to either declare a United Communist Front now or never. The UDCP, the leading communist party vote-wise, has slipped to fourth. This coalition would at least lead to third place. The only issue we truly differ on is the nature of the revolution. While I highly enocurage reformist revolution, I think it depends on the conditions of the nation of the revolution, and revolutionary communism can be justified. I think the leaders of the two groups (Dhomme and Arridia?) should work to write a formal document for the front, and members of both parties can vote to support it.

As soon as Ariddia gives it the okay, I'll set up a thread for the United Communist Front (I like that name... does everyone else?) with a current goal list. We can then debate the goals within that thread.

Does that sound fair?

It does sound fair, and I do like the name. I think first and foremost, we should mention that communists should be united and have electorally merged, although both factions retain their separate identities and are given autonomy. Remember, the ultimate purpose is to promote communism in general parliament...

As soon as Ariddia gives it the okay, I'll set up a thread for the United Communist Front (I like that name... does everyone else?) with a current goal list. We can then debate the goals within that thread.

Does that sound fair?
yup, and i like the name too :)

BUMP c'mon aridd

I am all for such an alliance. I probably have more or less equal common ground with both parties, anyway.

As soon as Ariddia gives it the okay, I'll set up a thread for the United Communist Front (I like that name... does everyone else?) with a current goal list. We can then debate the goals within that thread.

Does that sound fair?

*gives it the ok* :)

Most UDCP members seem to be in favour, so... let's roll!